• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

AGW and rising sea levels (1 Viewer)

litebeam

Well-known member
Thanks, Ed. I'd certainly like to peruse if that data is easily accessed and shared.

Joost, I'll review your link as well....
 

Nohatch

Mad scientist
My original statement in post #397 was: "Carbon isotope measurements of atmospheric CO2 are heavily disputed, as are CO2 longevity and ocean acidification." Although the two Norwegian articles you posted are interesting, they do little more than support my point that the issues are heavily disputed.

I think you're (purposefully) misrepresenting the situation to the wider audience here Ed. These are the (translated) rebuttal conclusions:

"Segalstad's understanding of the atmospheric CO2 increase does not support the existing scientific literature:
(1) There is no known massive CO2 emission that can explain Beck's (2007) description that the atmospheric CO2 concentration between 1920 and 1945 increased by 110 ppmv,
(2) The theory of Endersbee (2008) that the atmospheric CO2 increase due to exhaust gas emissions is not consistent with what has been observed,
(3) Segalstad misinterprets the result of its isotopic calculations, and
(4) Segalstad's criticism of Olsen et al. (2006) is baseless."


That's not a 'heavy scientific dispute', that's slapping down someone who either hasn't done their homework properly, or is being purposefully misleading to an audience who knows less about the topic and trusts the author's authority.


The 2015 letter to Nature certainly acknowledges the problem

And for those readers who didn't look beyond the quote selected in post #421, the authors of the paper then go on to provide empirical evidence to address the problem and conclude as follows:

"These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance."

The full paper is attached.

I would prefer if they had said 'measured temperature impact' rather than "radiative impact,"

You will find plenty of discussion regarding radiative forcing and temperature in the paper (check especially the extended methods section at the end).

I'm looking for statistical evidence that global surface temperatures are causally changed by measured atmospheric CO2.

The second attached paper (Stips et al. 2016 Nature Scientific Reports) and the references cited therein should be of interest then, especially given your background in statistics.

I have several articles that review the history of the CO2 issue, and of course they differ. Litebeam, if you're interested ...

I'd be curious to see those as well if you don't mind sharing them.

Cross-correlation functions also show that CO2 typically lags temperature by ~600-800 yrs. This appalling oversight was most notable in Al Gore's famous VuGraph presentation ... and has never been corrected.

And finally, could you show me the relevant papers for this please? I presume they suggest the current steep rise in CO2 concentrations is caused by the Medieval Warm Period...? ;)

Cheers,
Joost
 
Last edited:

elkcub

Silicon Valley, California
United States
I think you're (purposefully) misrepresenting the situation to the wider audience here Ed. These are the (translated) rebuttal conclusions:

"Segalstad's understanding of the atmospheric CO2 increase does not support the existing scientific literature:
(1) There is no known massive CO2 emission that can explain Beck's (2007) description that the atmospheric CO2 concentration between 1920 and 1945 increased by 110 ppmv,
(2) The theory of Endersbee (2008) that the atmospheric CO2 increase due to exhaust gas emissions is not consistent with what has been observed,
(3) Segalstad misinterprets the result of its isotopic calculations, and
(4) Segalstad's criticism of Olsen et al. (2006) is baseless."


That's not a 'heavy scientific dispute', that's slapping down someone who either hasn't done their homework properly, or is being purposefully misleading to an audience who knows less about the topic and trusts the author's authority.

And for those readers who didn't look beyond the quote selected in post #421, the authors of the paper then go on to provide empirical evidence to address the problem and conclude as follows:

"These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance."

The full paper is attached.
...
Joost

Do you now. To make it easier for those following the dialog, I've taken the liberty of attaching the English translation of Segalstad's response to your so-called "slapping down" (printed in the same publication).

Since you (purposefully?) suppressed the sequel, I'll leave it to the "wider audience" to judge my guilt or innocence in "misrepresenting the situation."

Thanks,
Ed
 

Attachments

  • Not everything is man-made forskning.pdf
    221.7 KB · Views: 26

litebeam

Well-known member
Do you now. To make it easier for those following the dialog, I've taken the liberty of attaching the English translation of Segalstad's response to your so-called "slapping down" (printed in the same publication).

Since you (purposefully?) suppressed the sequel, I'll leave it to the "wider audience" to judge my guilt or innocence in "misrepresenting the situation."

Thanks,
Ed

Touche'!....
 

Nohatch

Mad scientist
Do you now. To make it easier for those following the dialog, I've taken the liberty of attaching the English translation of Segalstad's response to your so-called "slapping down" (printed in the same publication).

Since you (purposefully?) suppressed the sequel, I'll leave it to the "wider audience" to judge my guilt or innocence in "misrepresenting the situation."

Thanks,
Ed

Ed, I had not seen the follow-up article you attached so my apologies for that. No suppression intended, or indeed required.
(P.S. since you'd clearly read the whole exchange, this does raise the question why you chose to present only one side of the argument in your original post?)

However, my original point stands: you state that "Carbon isotope measurements of atmospheric CO2 are heavily disputed, as are CO2 longevity and ocean acidification." I'm ignoring the ocean acidification bit, but the rest of your statement is thus far based on a single set of exchanges in a Norwegian glossy. Unless there's more elsewhere, where is the dispute? Not in the scientific literature, I can tell you that.

I have read the rebuttal by Segelstad, and it's essentially based on their own publication from 1982 (only had time to skim that one but it doesn't appear to have gained much traction in the scientific community), and the one from Beck in 2007. Attached is an immediate rebuttal of the Beck paper by Keeling; there are plenty of other (peer-reviewed) ones out there.
As always, I'm happy to discuss the contents of these papers, as well as the ones I posted yesterday.

So...do I think you are misrepresenting the situation (with regards to this specific point)? Yes I think you do, or at least you are severely overstating your case.

Cheers,
Joost
 

Attachments

  • 07.05.pdf
    84 KB · Views: 42
Last edited:

Nohatch

Mad scientist
I thought I'd post this article on the 'reliability of ice core science' as well, in response to one of the main criticism raised by Segelstad and other (namely that the ice core records are unreliable). It's aimed at a broad audience hence very readable, but does contain references to all the primary studies for those who want to delve deeper (pun not intended ;))

Joost
 

Attachments

  • j10j201.pdf
    222 KB · Views: 83
Last edited:

elkcub

Silicon Valley, California
United States
...Ed, I had not seen the follow-up article you attached so my apologies for that. No suppression intended, or indeed required.
(P.S. since you'd clearly read the whole exchange, this does raise the question why you chose to present only one side of the argument in your original post?)

Joost,

Let's settle this. I did not "present only one side of the argument" in my original post. The sole reason for attaching the Segalstad article was to show that there is ongoing scientific debate regarding the causal relationship between CO2 and temperature, its retention time in the atmosphere, and so forth.

I knew nothing about Bellerby, Olsen and Nondal's glossy article until you brought it up — apparently to show how he could be so easily 'slapped down.' Logic suggested that Segalstad probably would have responded at some point, and as it turned out he did.

Thanks,
Ed

PS. I'll comment about one of the two articles you attached shortly.
 

Nohatch

Mad scientist
Joost,

Let's settle this. I did not "present only one side of the argument" in my original post. The sole reason for attaching the Segalstad article was to show that there is ongoing scientific debate regarding the causal relationship between CO2 and temperature, its retention time in the atmosphere, and so forth.

I knew nothing about Bellerby, Olsen and Nondal's glossy article until you brought it up — apparently to show how he could be so easily 'slapped down.' Logic suggested that Segalstad probably would have responded at some point, and as it turned out he did.

Thanks,
Ed

PS. I'll comment about one of the two articles you attached shortly.

Hi Ed, fair enough. I suspect we both did the same thing and found the 'counter-article' via Google :)

I'd still like to point out that one scientist arguing against the going consensus based on not very convincing (or easily countered, take your pick) arguments does not, in my view, constitute a scientific debate.

Btw not sure if "glossy" is a term you use across the pond - I was going to go for newspaper or tabloid, but wasn't sure either was appropriate.

Cheers,
Joost
 

elkcub

Silicon Valley, California
United States
Hi Ed, fair enough. I suspect we both did the same thing and found the 'counter-article' via Google :)

I'd still like to point out that one scientist arguing against the going consensus based on not very convincing (or easily countered, take your pick) arguments does not, in my view, constitute a scientific debate.

Btw not sure if "glossy" is a term you use across the pond - I was going to go for newspaper or tabloid, but wasn't sure either was appropriate.

Cheers,
Joost

Joost,

I strictly follow your Royal Society's motto: Nullius in verba.

Ed
 
Last edited:

Nohatch

Mad scientist
Royal Society's motto: Nullius in verba.

"Take nobody's word for it" - I quite agree! Hence my statement of Segelstad using "not very convincing (or easily countered, take your pick) arguments". If he (and others) had stronger data to substantiate their criticisms or support their own theories I'd be much more inclined to think they have a point. Ultimately solid observations and repeatable experiments are needed to confirm or refute scientific theories.
Unless you're a "very stable genius" of course, then you can just make up any old [email protected] :clap:

Are you a scientist BTW?

Of course. I've made a full disclosure before (think it's buried somewhere else in this thread...), but in summary:
MSc in earth sciences & palaeoclimatology (Free University Amsterdam & University of Iceland)
PhD in organic biogeochemistry & marine microbiology (Utrecht University & Netherlands Institute for Sea Research)
Research assistant in marine microbial ecology (Rothera, Antarctica)
Then switched career paths and moved to the UK
Postdoc in metabolomics & disease biomarker discovery
Currently trying to get something a bit more permanent, but funding for science is tight, and tenured posts are thin on the ground.

So I wouldn't call myself an expert on the topic, but I do have a good basic knowledge and work with researchers active in the field (e.g at the National Oceanography Centre Southampton).
Having access to the actual papers helps too...btw I despise the academic publishing system. It pushes millions of public funds into the pockets of publishers, takes the copyright away from the people who did all the work, and then makes the results inaccessible to the public who paid for it in the first place.

Cheers,
Joost
 

Nohatch

Mad scientist
Joost, with ranch chores I can't claim to have quite as much free time as y'all do...bear with me.

I read only as much as I had time to respond to.

Litebeam, there's a reason I still haven't replied to Chosun's pre-Christmas post, nor in fact get round to addressing some of the comments and questions made in this thread last...March. Academia is definitely not a 9-to-5 job :) But my training does allow me to assimilate lots of dense complex information fast.

I do hope you will get round to reading the articles posted by me and Ed. Let me know what you think or if you want me to send you any of the other references.

Cheers,
Joost
 

elkcub

Silicon Valley, California
United States
Joost,

Of the two papers you provided, I'll only comment on Stips et al, "On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature." The analysis was based on (what appears to be) a major advance in applied statistics by X. San Liang published in 2014 entitled: "Unraveling the cause-effect relation between time series." This is quite different from standard methods heretofore used in meteorology, or for that matter general ARMA models. The math took me several hours to go through. So I recommend it for those with a math stat background. (I'm sorta rusty)

In any case, the Stips paper is rather interesting since it also answers your earlier question about Gore not knowing, or never admitting, that temperature preceded CO2 in the paleoclimate record of 420,000 yrs. (His VUgraph was apparently adapted from a 1999 Nature article by J.R. Petit et al, Fig, 3, in which the time scale was reversed and insolation time series removed.)

On pg. 4. para.2 of the Stips paper you will find a discussion of a temp => CO2 causality with time lags of 600-1000 yrs. However, the authors conclude that there is an inherent CO2 => temp causality for the last 150 yrs., which would never have been found with "traditional methods" (i.e., the tools most analysts are familiar with).

Very interesting. I could be persuaded if the methodology holds water, but they're saying that no one would see the effect by using conventional techniques.

Thanks
Ed
 

Attachments

  • Unraveling the cause-effect relation between time serie.pdf
    536.9 KB · Views: 16

elkcub

Silicon Valley, California
United States
"Take nobody's word for it" - I quite agree! Hence my statement of Segelstad using "not very convincing (or easily countered, take your pick) arguments". If he (and others) had stronger data to substantiate their criticisms or support their own theories I'd be much more inclined to think they have a point. Ultimately solid observations and repeatable experiments are needed to confirm or refute scientific theories.
Unless you're a "very stable genius" of course, then you can just make up any old [email protected]
:clap:

Of course. I've made a full disclosure before (think it's buried somewhere else in this thread...), but in summary:
MSc in earth sciences & palaeoclimatology (Free University Amsterdam & University of Iceland)
PhD in organic biogeochemistry & marine microbiology (Utrecht University & Netherlands Institute for Sea Research)
Research assistant in marine microbial ecology (Rothera, Antarctica)
Then switched career paths and moved to the UK
Postdoc in metabolomics & disease biomarker discovery
Currently trying to get something a bit more permanent, but funding for science is tight, and tenured posts are thin on the ground.

So I wouldn't call myself an expert on the topic, but I do have a good basic knowledge and work with researchers active in the field (e.g at the National Oceanography Centre Southampton).
Having access to the actual papers helps too...btw I despise the academic publishing system. It pushes millions of public funds into the pockets of publishers, takes the copyright away from the people who did all the work, and then makes the results inaccessible to the public who paid for it in the first place.

Cheers,
Joost

Joost,

I sent off #437 before reading your post. Thanks for the personal bio, which makes it easier to communicate. I can safely say that I know nothing about metabolomics, — so I'll avoid that area.

In this area (climate change, its causes and political implications) I'm also not an 'expert,' but when it comes to believing predictions, projections, ... whatever, from first principles modeling, in my book they must also be validated by "solid observations and repeatable experiments [analyses with real-world data.]" — preferably by people not connected to those who made the predictions or their associates.

Amen to despising the academic publishing system for all the reasons mentioned, ... but I would also add the major science 'advocacy' organizations, which own many of the prestigious journals and often take public policy positions over the objections of individual members.

Thanks, :t:
Ed
 
Last edited:

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
07.01.2018 - Penrith - Sydney, NSW, Australia, "clocks the hottest place on Earth"

Unfortunately, I have zero time for plowing through technical documents at the moment, but as a nearby river valley was the hottest place on earth ! yesterday (47.3°C ~117°F) https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...as-hot-weather-continues-20180107-h0etl6.html , I thought I would link these news articles. The UTS Institute study (more like a rudimentary survey that is light-on in many key meteorological and landscape variables .... http://202020vision.com.au/media/7141/benchmarking_australias_urban_tree_canopy.pdf) refers to what I have said about evapotranspiration earlier in this thread.

“There is a direct correlation between land surface temperature and lack of canopy cover"
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/n...s/news-story/f04652d835ccdb67a9bff64e449e03e9


Chosun :gh:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top